Military Review

Modern light tanks - are they?

119
A light tank is one of the possible classifications. tanks, which almost came to naught with the advent of the main battle tanks (the same thing happened with medium and heavy tanks). The functional tasks of light tanks were adopted by other armored vehicles - infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers, various lightly armored reconnaissance vehicles, etc. Moreover, even in the XXI century, such machines continue to be designed. If we discard a number of conventions, then the Russian anti-tank self-propelled gun "Sprut-SD", which was developed specifically for the airborne troops, can be easily attributed to light tanks.


In the general case, the concept of a light tank included all tanks of lesser mass than medium tanks, but larger than tankettes. At the same time, at various periods of time, their mass varied in a fairly wide range from 4 to 15-18 tons for tanks of the Second World War and to 23 tons for post-war tanks M41. The very first light tank was the famous French Renault FT-17, which appeared at the final stage of the First World War. In the future, light tanks were fairly active development and reached its heyday in the 1930-s. These machines enjoyed deserved popularity in many countries around the world because of their low cost both in production and in operation. In the USSR, the quintessence of light tanks can be called a family of BT tanks, which possessed outstanding for their time speed, high mobility, good armament and weak armor.

Before the beginning of World War II, light tanks were the basis or the main part of the tank forces of many countries, but during the war and after it, for a number of objective reasons, light tanks squandered their former value, becoming a fairly specialized military equipment. By the end of the 20th century, these vehicles had almost completely disappeared from the armies of the developed states, being used mainly only by those countries that cannot afford the presence of more powerful combat vehicles.

Modern light tanks - are they?

But the military is not ready to completely say goodbye to light tanks, in the past few years, on the contrary, the popularity of such machines has increased. Light tanks are being developed in Poland, Sweden, and China. Such machines are indispensable in mountainous areas, in swamps, where heavy equipment cannot pass. These tanks are very mobile, they can easily be moved from place to place by air. Thus, the infantry appears combat vehicle with serious firepower.

Modern light tanks

"Sprut-SD" 2C25 (Russia)

Self-propelled artillery mount 2S25 "Octopus-SD" (SD stands for self-propelled landing) was created in the early 1990s. "Octopus-SD" is designed to combat the enemy’s equipment, including armored, as well as his manpower when operating as part of the Airborne Forces, Marines and Ground Forces. Externally, the car is very similar to an ordinary tank, combining the capabilities of a main battle tank and a landing amphibious BMD. Octopus can be transported by military transport aircraft aviationlanding ships. The machine can be dropped from an airplane with a crew inside by parachute method, and also without preparation to overcome any water obstacles with a wave of up to 3 points. "Octopus" is able to independently load into the landing ships from the water when solving various combat missions and fire afloat.

The Sprut-SD is a mobile armored tracked vehicle with a powerful artillery and missile weapon system. This light tank is able to overcome without refueling up to 500 km. The machine has a very high power density and is capable of successfully conducting military operations in hot tropical climates, high altitude conditions. In terms of its firepower, the machine is not inferior to MBT T-72 and T-80, and in terms of mobility and maneuverability it is on par with BMD-3. All these qualities, together with the circular rotation of the turret and the stabilization of the gun in the 2-x planes, allow the use of the Sprut-SD as a light amphibious tank that has no analogues in the world.


In front of the "Sprut" building there is a command and control unit, the combat compartment with the turret is located in the middle of the vehicle, and the engine compartment (MTO) is located in the stern. In the stowed position, the tank commander sits on the right side of the driver, and the gunner - on the left. Each of the crew members has observation devices built into the roof, which have day and night channels. At the same time, the commander's combined sight is stabilized in the 2-x planes. As an auxiliary weapon on a light tank, an 7,62-mm PKT machine gun is used. Since the Sprut-SD was created on the basis of the BMD-3, a significant number of units and components of the base machine were used in its design.

Currently, the issue of the modernization of the Sprut-SD anti-tank installation is being studied. The new version will be built on the basis of the BMD-4M airborne combat vehicle. The 125-2-46 X-gun (mounted on T-5) mounted on this tank can fire both with modern armor-piercing ammunition, including the Lead, and anti-tank missiles. The guidance system will include a target tracking machine and a thermal imager. The automatic tracking will be able to independently calculate the trajectory and determine the distance to the target. In addition, the new machine will receive a modern digital OMS, the latest electronics and software and hardware complex, allowing to integrate the combat vehicle into the tactical level control system.

The Volgograd Tractor Works was engaged in the development and production of this combat vehicle. Therefore, all the work on the modernization and unification of 2C25 "Sprut-SD" with BMD-4M will be held in Volgograd. It is assumed that the upgraded version of its firepower will be equal to the main battle tank of the Russian army T-90.


Performance characteristics "Sprut-SD":
Dimensions: length - 9,771 m (with a cannon forward), width - 3,152 m, height - 2,72 m;
Mass - 18 tons;
Engine power - HP 510 .;
Maximum speed on the highway - 70 km / h;
Maximum speed afloat - 10 km / h;
Cruising on the highway - 500 km;
The caliber of the main gun - 125 mm;
Ammunition - 40 shells in AZ - 22;
Crew - 3 people.

CV90120-T (Sweden)

This light tank was developed on the basis of the modified tracked chassis of the CV90 infantry fighting vehicle, as a private initiative. For the first time, BAE Systems Hagglunds demonstrated its new light tank CV90120-T at the Eurosatory international exhibition in Paris in 1998. In the same year, tests of the first prototype tank were completed.

The lightweight tank CV90120-T has not the most common layout for modern tanks with front-mounted logistics. This decision is due to the fact that the tank was created on the basis of the chassis, which is a variant of the CV9040 BMP chassis. This chassis has undergone a number of changes in order to place the 3-local turret in the rear of the car, in addition to this, in front of it the booking was increased.
The armor of the light tank CV90120-T along the frontal arc of the turret and hull is able to cope with 30-mm armor-piercing shells, the tank's circular armor provides it with protection against modern 12,7-mm ammunition. In addition to the main armor, as well as the aerosol curtain system, an active protection system (AAC - active armor concept), which was created by the German company IBD Diesenroth Engineering in cooperation with the Swedish company Akers Krutbruk, can be installed on the tank.


The main armament of the tank is the 120 mm gun CTG120 / L50 (Compact Tank Gun - a compact tank gun), which has a long barrel 50 caliber. This tool was designed in Switzerland by RUAG. The gun was specially designed for installation on all sorts of light armored vehicles. To reduce recoil gun equipped with a muzzle brake, it also has an ejector. The 120-mm gun barrel has a special thermal insulation jacket to increase the accuracy of firing. The gun is stabilized in the 2-x planes. The main argument for installing a powerful 120-mm gun was the desire to combine the firepower of a modern tank with the mobility of lighter combat vehicles. The total weight of the CV90120-T can reach 28 tons, while modern MBTs in Western countries weigh almost 2 times more.

In the aft of the tank turret, a semi-automatic loader is installed on 12 shots; if it is used, the rate of fire can be 12-14 shots / min. The rest of the gun ammunition - another 33 projectile - is in the hull aft in the racks, it can quickly be loaded into the tower through the aft door. Possessing an 120-mm gun, the CV90120-T light tank is not inferior in its firepower to the Leopard 2 MBT, while having a substantially smaller mass, which has a positive effect on the tactical and strategic mobility of the tank.

The crew of the Swedish light tank CV90120-T includes 4-man - commander, infecting (backup commander), gunner and driver. The workplace of the driver is in front of the hull of the tank from the left side. Jobs of other tank crew members are in the fighting compartment. The loader is located to the left of the gun, and the commander and gunner to her right (the gunner sits in front, behind him and above - the commander).


The chassis of the Swedish tank consists of 7 dual track rollers on each side, a drive wheel (front) and a guide wheel (aft). Suspension of all rollers individual torsion. On the nodes of the 1 th, 2 th and 7 th suspension rollers are installed hydraulic double-acting shock absorbers. The MTO is located in the front of the hull from the starboard side, it houses the V-8 diesel engine of the Scania DI16 liquid-cooling HP 670, which is paired with an automatic transmission.

CV90120-T performance characteristics:
Dimensions: length - 8,9 m, width - 3,2 m, height - 2,8 m;
Mass - 28 tons;
Engine power - HP 615 .;
Maximum speed on the highway - 70 km / h;
Cruising on the highway - 600 km;
The caliber of the main gun - 120 mm;
Ammunition - 45 shells, in AZ - 12;
Crew - 4 people.

LC-08 Anders (Poland)

Another manufacturer of light tanks today is Poland, which began developing its own unified tracked platform. The first car of the new platform was the light tank LC-08 Anders, which should become the main link in the system of direct support for motorized infantry and tank units on the battlefield. In this case, the tank can be easily transferred to the category of medium, changing the composition and thickness of its armor.


The peculiarity of the Polish light tank is its “confinement” for use in peacekeeping operations, including in the urban environment. If necessary, the tank can be equipped with a complex of active protection. At the prototypes presented in 2010, the Ukrainian system Zaslon was used, but other systems, for example, the Israeli Trophy, could also be installed on serial light tanks. The area of ​​use of the machine is determined by the urban areas, the area affected by the WMD, as well as all existing climatic zones (with a view to export). At the same time, a tank is distinguished by such characteristics as air mobility (the possibility of transportation by modern transport aviation), low weight and size, and high mobility.

The main armament of the tank can be a Swiss-made RUN CTG 120-mm gun, the same as on the Swedish light tank CV90120-T. This gun has 12 projectiles located in the AZ, and 20 projectiles are behind the automatic loader. The prototype tower of the LC-08 Anders tank was designed in Poland. All operations for loading the gun and extracting spent cartridges are performed automatically, without the participation of the crew. The crew of the tank includes 3-x people: driver, commander and weapon operator. The driver is located in front of the turret on the left side of the engine, like a Russian-made BMP, the rest in the inner part of the turret. In the stern of the light tank LC-08 Anders, as well as on the Israeli MBT "Merkava", there is a small compartment in which you can carry up to 4-x soldiers. However, during the transportation of the assault force, it will be necessary to abandon 20 projectiles that can be placed in this compartment.

The 33-ton light tank is driven by a German-made diesel engine 8V199 TE20 (MTU) with an HP 720 power. The use of such an engine allows the tank to accelerate on a highway to a speed of 72 km / h. The transmission and the engine are located in the front of the tank, which allowed the designers to free the stern of the vehicle to accommodate a landing area for the assault or ammunition.


In addition to the version with the 120-mm gun, Polish engineers presented a Belgian-made CT-CV turret with a CT-CV turret, which contains an 105-mm gun. Due to the different layout of the fighting compartment and the smaller caliber gun, the tank with the CT-CV turret has a large ammunition load than the version with the Polish turret. At the same time, the Belgian-made tower takes up less space in the tank itself, which makes it possible to increase the landing compartment with 1-2 seats, as well as to increase the transported ammunition.

Performance characteristics of LC-08 Anders:
Dimensions: length - 6,9 m, 8,8 m (with a gun forward);
Mass - 33 tons;
Engine power - up to 720 hp;
Maximum speed on the highway - 72 km / h;
The caliber of the main tool - mm 120 or mm 105;
Ammunition - 32 projectile for the version with 120-mm gun, in AZ - 12.
Crew - 3 people.

Information sources:
-http: //pro-tank.ru/blog/1119-new-sau-will-replace-anti-tank-gun-sprut
-http: //vpk.name/news/91062_sprutsd_moderniziruyut_i_unificiruyut_s_bmd4m.html
-http: //vpk.name/news/59904_broneplatforma_iz_vostochnoi_evropyi.html
-http: //www.military-informant.com/index.php/army/551-lc-08-anders.html
-http: //www.army-guide.com/eng/product262.html
Author:
119 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Akim
    Akim 3 October 2013 08: 36
    16
    Question. And why in the example only caterpillar tracks? Who staked out the right of this mover to evaluate tanks. The first Russian tanks were wheeled. And now there are many wheeled tanks that are cheaper to manufacture.
    1. klimpopov
      klimpopov 3 October 2013 09: 14
      +4
      By the way, a reasonable remark. About the wheel mover. Now, as I understand it, it is believed that only tracked vehicles can be called tanks. But there is also a wheel - tracked circuit ...
      1. Akim
        Akim 3 October 2013 09: 32
        +1
        Quote: klimpopov
        Now, as I understand it, it is believed that only tracked vehicles can be called tanks

        Not really. The French AMX-10RC is considered a tank. That year the Italian "Centaur" was rolled in Russia. To be honest, I do not see the difference between many MOPs and light tanks. Only in the organizational structure.
        Wolverine tank or MOS
        1. klimpopov
          klimpopov 3 October 2013 09: 43
          +4
          Only in the organizational structure.

          Well, here I am about the same. Formally, it’s not called tanks, but a lot fits the parameters. And when compared with the light tanks 30 - x. So any BMP ...
    2. mark1
      mark1 3 October 2013 09: 51
      +6
      Quote: Akim
      And why in the example only caterpillar tracks? Who staked out the right of this mover to evaluate tanks. The first Russian tanks were wheeled. And now there are many wheeled tanks that are cheaper to manufacture.
      "A tank, by definition, is a combat tracked vehicle with powerful weapons, a multi-level complex of protection against all modern weapons, high cross-country ability in off-road conditions and the ability to overcome complex natural, artificial and water obstacles along the bottom."
      "... there are no advantages of wheeled combat vehicles over tracked vehicles, except for the maximum speed on the highway. The main disadvantage of BMTV, which cannot be solved constructively, is the impossibility of achieving the required level of armor protection within the mass from 16 to 24 tons. Reinforcement of armor inevitably leads to an increase the mass of BMTV and, as a consequence, a decrease in cross-country ability. The wheeled propeller also does not provide the necessary combat survivability due to the vulnerability of pneumatic tires from damage when driving in mountainous and wooded areas, during mine explosions and under enemy fire. "
      I fully support this point of view.
      http://www.oborona.ru/includes/periodics/armament/2012/0918/13139141/detail.shtm
      l
      1. Akim
        Akim 3 October 2013 10: 16
        +1
        Quote: mark1
        I fully support this point of view.

        The only thing I agree with is that the tank on wheels cannot provide a reliable reservation due to weight restrictions. Therefore, they do not fit into the MBT category. But the presence of KAZ and KOEP may well increase its chances of survival
        1. Torang
          Torang 3 October 2013 15: 48
          +3
          The wheel drive limits not only the reservation. Limited mobility on rough terrain, restrictions on the use of heavy weapons. Tracked MBT is the only compromise so far for these mutually exclusive requirements. In my opinion, all cars except MBT have lost the right to be called tanks, because they are already performing a fairly narrow range of tasks.
          1. Akim
            Akim 3 October 2013 15: 56
            +3
            Quote: Torang
            Limited mobility on rough terrain, restrictions on the use of heavy weapons.

            These items are out of date. Wheelchairs here are almost not far behind geese. As for the specifics. Yes, he does not go in combat formation of combined arms combat. The light tank has its own tasks. Make a mess and rinse off.
            1. Torang
              Torang 3 October 2013 16: 24
              +2
              How can mobility on the battlefield become obsolete?
              1. Akim
                Akim 3 October 2013 16: 34
                0
                Quote: Torang
                mobility

                Not MOBILITY, but the fact that the wheels practically do not lag behind the tracks in overcoming rough terrain. A simple civil example for you is the Paris-Dakkar rally. This has been known since the 70s. And new materials and pulse damping make it possible to create guns of any caliber for wheeled armored vehicles.
                1. Torang
                  Torang 3 October 2013 16: 53
                  +2
                  So these are different things, mobility on the battlefield and the ability to overcome obstacles. In addition, wheel equipment overcomes obstacles due to the relatively low weight. You can push the gun, but there are problems with the application. I think it’s fraught, for example, to shoot sideways, even with a slight roll, etc. Wheel vehicles with heavy cannon weapons have a right to exist and are probably preferable in some cases, but here the battlefield universals are OBT. In my opinion, any light armored vehicle, wheeled or tracked, has a rather narrow specialization. In terminalology, now the devil will break a leg, one and the same equipment is just not called. My opinion is the tank - MBT. The rest are nerds.
                  1. Akim
                    Akim 3 October 2013 17: 03
                    +1
                    Quote: Torang
                    My opinion is the tank - MBT. The rest of the nonsense

                    He is the main, but not the only one. In India, the use of T-72/90 proved to be impossible at mountain passes. BMP-2 is not as effective. Therefore, they are now looking for a light tank that can be transported by heavy helicopters.
                  2. Blackgrifon
                    Blackgrifon 3 October 2013 20: 41
                    +4
                    Quote: Torang
                    My opinion is the tank - MBT. The rest are nerds.


                    I disagree with you. With all its advantages, MBT is inferior to "specialized" machines in certain situations. So the PLA adopted a light mountain tank, the Sprut-SD family is being developed for our Airborne Forces, and the PT-76 is for the Marines. Yes, a light tank in a collision with MBT in an open area is a mass grave, but from an ambush or as a means of fire support for paratroopers / marines / mountain shooters, it is a serious weapon.
                    1. Torang
                      Torang 4 October 2013 16: 10
                      0
                      I'm not saying that this is frivolous, on the contrary. Highly specialized - implies high efficiency in a single specialization. I meant that the word tank means a fairly universal vehicle of the battlefield, which is MBT. In my opinion, it is absolutely true that the Octopus is officially listed as artillery (which can be seen even from the index), because this is its specialization. Pt76 also has its specialization in its name. The Chinese also have a very specific "mountain tank". Simply using the name "tank" implies its use "for tank", which is death for special vehicles.
                      1. Basileus
                        Basileus 6 October 2013 16: 31
                        0
                        Not in a tank but in an OBT. Only because we are so used to the extinction of other tank classes. At the same time, always different classes of tanks were used in different ways. This can be seen on the same WWII.
    3. Firstvanguard
      Firstvanguard 3 October 2013 11: 49
      +3
      If you apply the classification adopted before the appearance of MBTs, then it is more like a tank destroyer than light tanks. soldier
      1. Basileus
        Basileus 3 October 2013 11: 57
        +2
        Tank destroyer, for that matter.
        Although, anti-tank self-propelled guns, if you build on weak armor protection, is also an option.
      2. Akim
        Akim 3 October 2013 12: 23
        +1
        Quote: Firstvanguard
        it’s more like a tank destroyer than light tanks.

        This is because it is part of the anti-tank battery. The Indians wanted to use it as a mountain tank.
        1. bask
          bask 3 October 2013 13: 54
          +6
          Quote: Akim
          and. The Indians wanted to use it as a mountain tan

          SU ,, Octopus SD, is an anti-tank self-propelled gun operating from ambush.-EVERYTHING.
          1. Akim
            Akim 3 October 2013 15: 11
            +2
            Quote: bask
            This is an anti-tank self-propelled gun operating from ambushes.-EVERYTHING.

            Good. Can you give an example, which of the modern light tanks goes to the frontal?
            1. bask
              bask 3 October 2013 16: 32
              +2
              Quote: Akim
              Good. Can you give an example, which of the modern light tanks goes to the frontal?

              Akim. Who participated in the fighting in the first line.
              I quote wheeled tanks (or how do you write MOS-mobile fire platform-correctly decrypted?).
              1.BMOP-AMX 10 RC, France (All of Africa)

              2.Ctntauro, Italy. (Somalia)

              3.Rooikat, South Africa. (Angola)
              1. Akim
                Akim 3 October 2013 17: 22
                +1
                MOS fire support vehicle. Unlike a tank / tank destroyer, they are directly related to infantry. In general, the concept of MOS has not been fully developed.
              2. vorobey
                vorobey 3 October 2013 19: 11
                +5
                good evening everyone.

                Basque. Last year, in a dispute, I gave an example from the combat use of centaurs, when in a city battle they came across barricades and were unable to break through them. After 40 minutes, the shootings were forced to retreat. I’ll dig it out, but to be honest once.

                And what is your first line?
                1. bask
                  bask 3 October 2013 19: 31
                  +4
                  Quote: vorobey
                  And what is your first line?

                  Good evening. Vorobey hi
                  But the Centaurs stumbled upon the barricades, which means they were in the first line.
                  When storming the city, (Syria example) they have nothing to do there, they will burn it in minutes.
                  This is a weapon against the Papuans.
                  Or in the third line, to support the infantry.
                  When storming a fortified area in a village saturated with RPGs, ATGMs, and snipers.
                  MBT, BTR-T / BMP-T are coming to the fore. And engineering equipment, like the D-9 bulldozer.
                  It all depends on the tactics and application of light armored vehicles.
                  But it is needed, if applied correctly.
          2. Alexey Prikazchikov
            Alexey Prikazchikov 3 October 2013 16: 25
            -1
            SU ,, Octopus SD, is an anti-tank self-propelled gun operating from ambush.-EVERYTHING.


            Tell us how it will work from ambush. If the Abrams has a thermal imaging that distinguishes the heat of the human body from a coffee pound, up to 2 kilometers confidently. Plus, if the same abrams is integrated into a single network-centric network and is connected with reconnaissance light and medium-high UAVs. Equipped with excellent optics with thermal imaging camera. And who ALWAYS go ahead of tanks.
            1. bask
              bask 3 October 2013 17: 05
              +3
              Quote: Alexey Prikazchikov
              Tell us how it will work from ambush. If Abrams has a thermal imaging that distinguishes the heat of the human body from a collapse

              This question is not for me, but for the developers.
              Here is a video, that's all ...
              1. Alexey Prikazchikov
                Alexey Prikazchikov 3 October 2013 23: 17
                +3

                This question is not for me, but for the developers.
                Here is a video, that's all ...

                It can be used only for settling the landing group. The tank is not particularly landing due to weight. But you can octopus. This is his niche and nothing more.
            2. Avenger711
              Avenger711 3 October 2013 19: 16
              +3
              Well, let it be different, you can distinguish a lot on a machine that works on one APU and whose power plant is in good condition.
              1. Alexey Prikazchikov
                Alexey Prikazchikov 3 October 2013 23: 11
                +1

                Avenger711 (6) RU  Today, 19:16 ↑ New


                Well, let it be different, you can distinguish a lot on a machine that works on one APU and whose power plant is in worm


                UAV and can not see it.
            3. jjj
              jjj 4 October 2013 03: 42
              +1
              What do you think, why is the "pixel" camouflage urgently introduced? To make digital devices less visible. How to trick a thermal imager? Cover yourself with thermal film. How to trick a motion sensor? Hide behind the mirror.
            4. Firstvanguard
              Firstvanguard 7 October 2013 12: 58
              0
              Tell us how it will work from ambush. If the Abrams has a thermal imaging that distinguishes the heat of the human body from a coffee pound, up to 2 kilometers confidently. Plus, if the same abrams is integrated into a single network-centric network and is connected with reconnaissance light and medium-high UAVs. Equipped with excellent optics with thermal imaging camera. And who ALWAYS go ahead of tanks.

              With all this good, in Iraq they managed to mock their tanks repeat quite efficiently laughing
              Moreover, at natives Iraqis did not have modern electronic warfare equipment, and indeed in terms of field inventions surprising ammunition, they are taut. Fantasy is not how the Slavs work smile
    4. duke
      duke 4 October 2013 11: 10
      0
      You mean the base from the BTR-90, speaking of Russian wheeled tanks, I'm not talking about the Centauro, AMX, American and South African cars? Indeed, on the BTR-90 they tried on the Bahch module and even presented it in the Emirates, wrote that it turned out to be a high-quality copy. And the Octopus tower can be used on the PT-76, and we and the Indians have a lot of them, where they participated in the Indo-Pakistani war, made a breakthrough in the wetlands, which brought success. The PT-76 base, in my opinion, is most suitable for a tower with a 125mm module, of course you need a new engine, all electronic stuffing, including communication, OMS, etc.
      1. Akim
        Akim 4 October 2013 11: 33
        0
        Quote: duke
        The PT-76 base, in my opinion, is most suitable for a tower with a 125mm module,

        The BMP-3 has a good body shape, and only 76 mm cannons were delivered to the PT-100.
    5. CAMS
      CAMS 6 October 2013 04: 45
      -2
      your barrel has long been gone there are no light tanks in nature there is no topic is not promising
  2. erased
    erased 3 October 2013 08: 40
    +8
    Octopus can in no way be considered a tank. This is a self-propelled gun. The same BT-2/5/7 and T-26 of all modifications were battlefield machines. T-26 tank infantry escort, BT - a breakthrough tank. They marched in front of or along with the infantry. And Octopus is a mobile anti-tank unit, which is dangerous to put on the cutting edge. In fact, this is a 125 mm gun, which was placed on the chassis or tracks.
    As for the rest of the vehicles, their use is again very specific, however, they are more like light tanks.
    The experience of Iraq, Chechnya and Syria has shown that in a modern battle, which often takes place in the city, tanks need strong armor and reliable! cover! BMP and armored personnel carriers burned in the streets of Grozny, like torches, all these light tanks will also burn. Especially if they are stupidly thrown forward without infantry.
    1. Akim
      Akim 3 October 2013 08: 48
      +4
      Quote: erased
      Octopus can in no way be considered a tank. This is a self-propelled gun.

      And why can Sheridan be considered an airborne tank, and Octopus-SD not? And what are its differences in concept with the PT-76 so that they qualify differently?
    2. mark1
      mark1 3 October 2013 09: 09
      +3
      Quote: erased
      As for the rest of the vehicles, their use is again very specific, however, they are more like light tanks.

      28 tons -33 tons these are rather lightweight medium tanks, but not lightweight. The "Octopus" seems to lack the ability to fire on the move (only from short stops), and this explains its classification as an ACS, but in terms of weight it corresponds to the LT. By themselves, the tasks of a light tank are not entirely clear.
      1. Firstvanguard
        Firstvanguard 3 October 2013 11: 58
        +2
        The "Octopus" seems to lack the ability to fire on the move (only from short stops), this explains its classification as an ACS, but in terms of weight it corresponds to LT

        Sorry Dear, but you smash the rubbish lol
        All these qualities, combined with the circular rotation of the turret and the stabilization of the guns in 2 planes, make it possible to use the Sprut-SD as a light amphibious tank that has no analogues in the world.

        hi
        1. mark1
          mark1 3 October 2013 14: 02
          +2
          Quote: Firstvanguard
          Sorry Dear, but you smash the rubbish

          Yes, Dear, he blurted out not carefully. What is obvious to you is not a fact to me. I have not seen a single video footage of an Octopus firing on the move (shooting afloat does not count), but now I rummaged well - indeed, one soldier in an interview says that it is better to shoot on the move - the recoil is less (but this is the only confirmation that it is possible to shoot from running - in the sense without consequences for the transmission)
          1. Avenger711
            Avenger711 3 October 2013 15: 32
            +1
            Because the transmission, most likely, does not tolerate it without consequences, because it is involved in the suppression of returns. The article about Octopus-SD was here not so long ago.
          2. Setrac
            Setrac 3 October 2013 16: 24
            +1
            Quote: mark1
            I have not seen a single video of the Octopus firing on the move

            And yet there is no video where Octopus shoots sideways.
          3. Firstvanguard
            Firstvanguard 7 October 2013 13: 02
            0
            I have not seen a single video of the Octopus firing on the move

            The stabilized gun and the stabilized commander’s sight are hinted hi
        2. Avenger711
          Avenger711 3 October 2013 15: 31
          +1
          Not so long ago there was an article about "Sprut-SD", which described how recoil is extinguished, in addition to a huge rollback by tank standards, the car also kind of squats, and there are doubts that such a mechanism is applicable on the go. That is, the classification is correct, self-propelled gun.
          1. Akim
            Akim 3 October 2013 15: 40
            +1
            Quote: Avenger711
            and there is doubt that such a mechanism is applicable on the go. That is, the classification is correct, self-propelled gun.

            And what do you take the Swedish Strv 103? In theory, this is a tank destroyer, but it went like a tank into battalions, although it also could not shoot at once.
            1. mark1
              mark1 3 October 2013 15: 48
              +1
              Quote: Akim
              And what do you take the Swedish Strv 103? In theory, this is a tank destroyer, but it went like a tank into battalions, although it also could not shoot at once.

              So you can call it whatever you like, the essence of this does not change
              1. Akim
                Akim 3 October 2013 15: 59
                +2
                Quote: mark1
                So you can call it whatever you like,

                We did not have the concept of a SEMI-AUTOMATIC pistol, now there is. We must live in step.
            2. vorobey
              vorobey 3 October 2013 19: 17
              +3
              Quote: Akim
              Quote: Avenger711
              and there is doubt that such a mechanism is applicable on the go. That is, the classification is correct, self-propelled gun.

              And what do you take the Swedish Strv 103? In theory, this is a tank destroyer, but it went like a tank into battalions, although it also could not shoot at once.


              But the bitch does not need to be compared with the CCM is a premature unique one of a kind. He is not human.
            3. Avenger711
              Avenger711 3 October 2013 19: 19
              0
              I will attribute it to the assault / anti-tank self-propelled guns technically, to the horseradish tank, taking into account its place in the Swedish Armed Forces. The Germans, by the way, at the end of the war actively drove self-propelled guns even instead of tanks because of the cheap design (there is no mechanism for turning the turret).
              1. Aristocrat
                Aristocrat 4 October 2013 22: 32
                0
                Not because of the cheapness, but because the self-propelled guns can be equipped with a more powerful gun of a larger caliber than the tank whose chassis was used.
    3. avt
      avt 3 October 2013 10: 10
      +5
      Quote: erased
      Octopus can in no way be considered a tank. This is a self-propelled gun

      And what is characteristic, the Swedish model presented by its owners themselves consider it self-propelled! Here they have a tank without a tower, and a self-propelled gun with a tower.
      Quote: Akim
      And why can Sheridan be considered an airborne tank, and Octopus-SD not? And what are its differences in concept with the PT-76 so that they qualify differently?

      Yes, even if the Americans call the battleship, we .... t. And call Octopus a tank natural wrecking! It’s necessary to burn out the idea of ​​burning with a hot iron that this is a tank. For sure there are wise men to use it that way and then yell that the armor is weak compared to Merkava and they won’t even move a single gyrus about
      Quote: Akim
      And what are his differences in concept with the PT-76,

      just will yell that complete g ...
      1. Speedy
        Speedy 3 October 2013 12: 32
        +3
        Quote: avt
        And call Octopus a tank natural wrecking! With a hot iron, even the thought of burning out is necessary that it is a tank.

        Absolutely agree. In V.O.V. they tried to use self-propelled guns on tank tanks (such as a tank, armor, a gun, an engine) they started to hate the Su-76m altogether .. On the other hand, they were an example of the French and Austrians. Very similar and in some places identical machines (amx13 and cuirassier) were used and designated differently. The French have a light sentinel tank, the Austrians have a tank destroyer. No one, in my opinion, had a desire to use them as main tanks.
    4. Majordok
      Majordok 3 October 2013 11: 38
      +1
      On the streets of the city ANY armored vehicles will burn like a torch!
      1. Avenger711
        Avenger711 3 October 2013 15: 35
        +7
        But the tanks disagree with you, the sad experience of crushing the enemy without major problems without heavy weapons in the cities dates back to 44-45 years and ends with the Second Chechen, when the crews were trained in technology and DZ, and the tactics are correct, Iraq, Syria, where T-72 holes are brewed 10 times, but stubbornly do not burn.
    5. Black Colonel
      Black Colonel 3 October 2013 13: 00
      +3
      BT - a breakthrough tank
      In general, the breakthrough tank was HF, and it was planned to rush into the breached front with a lighter and more mobile BT to disrupt communications and destroy the rear infrastructure, as could not meet anti-tank defense behind enemy lines
    6. nightingale
      nightingale 4 October 2013 09: 05
      0
      what actually some of our generals like to do
      1. Aristocrat
        Aristocrat 4 October 2013 22: 35
        0
        Than? And whose ours? Our Russian or our Polish?
  3. Xroft
    Xroft 3 October 2013 09: 21
    +1
    Light tanks kept hit the cartridge caliber SVD?
  4. Alexey Prikazchikov
    Alexey Prikazchikov 3 October 2013 09: 34
    0
    Now even in Russia we have a normal road to any significant settlement. Therefore, you can afford a normal wheeled vehicle. And light tanks, if needed, should be as inexpensive as possible on a wheelbase.
    1. Akim
      Akim 3 October 2013 09: 42
      +2
      Quote: Alexey Prikazchikov
      Therefore, you can afford a normal wheeled vehicle.

      First you need to decide where these tanks will go structurally. In Poland, these tanks will replace the T-72M and RT-91, which are structurally part of mechanized or infantry brigades.
      1. Alexey Prikazchikov
        Alexey Prikazchikov 3 October 2013 10: 32
        +1
        I think they can be used as strikers with a 105mm gun, Americans use it. To settle, it’s better when a platoon of wheeled bbm covers one such machine. Therefore, organizationally, such a technique should be in all medium brigades using a wheelbase.
        1. Akim
          Akim 3 October 2013 10: 49
          +3
          Quote: Alexey Prikazchikov
          be in all medium teams using a wheelbase.

          Wheeled to wheeled, tracked to tracked. For example, the 3rd mechanized brigade of Poland has the BWP-1 in service and will be replaced by the Anders infantry fighting vehicle, respectively, the tank battalion will receive the same tank. And 17 mechanized brigade sits on the CTO of Wolverine and they need a wheeled tank and artillery on a wheeled chassis.
          Poland, of course, is not the most important example, but there is logic in this.
          1. Alexey Prikazchikov
            Alexey Prikazchikov 3 October 2013 16: 22
            0
            Wheeled to wheeled, tracked to tracked. For example, the 3rd mechanized brigade of Poland has the BWP-1 in service and will be replaced by the Anders infantry fighting vehicle, respectively, the tank battalion will receive the same tank. And 17 mechanized brigade sits on the CTO of Wolverine and they need a wheeled tank and artillery on a wheeled chassis.
            Poland, of course, is not the most important example, but there is logic in this.


            In Poland, a highly developed road network is the whole logic. Soils they are usually also quite solid. that’s the whole logic. But again, as I understand it, they will use in each unit their type of technology is what I was talking about.
        2. max702
          max702 3 October 2013 12: 25
          +3
          To do this, it is more reasonable to use NONU or Vienna, and Octopus is a specific anti-tank weapon, with its drawbacks (small pointing angles, expensive SLA, expensive ammunition, low barrel life), as for me, we can’t get rid of the tank fear of the Great Patriotic War, the probable enemy has no goals in the required numbers in order to produce such narrowly specialized equipment for them, in which conflicts will it be used for its intended purpose, namely, the struggle with the enemy’s machine guns? Suppose, in the enemy’s rear, they fired from an ambush at an armored convoy, how many shots she will have time to do before detection? correctly 2-3 and then either leave the position or which is more likely to be destroyed, but then the standard BMD equipped with ATGM will perfectly cope with the task of 2-3 shots, for which this sample is needed is not clear ..
          1. Avenger711
            Avenger711 3 October 2013 15: 43
            +1
            I have another idea, a medium tank with a 100-105 mm cannon, and circular armor with an emphasis on anti-cumulative protection. Perhaps it will be cheaper and even more tenacious than a classic tank in conditions of hunting for bearded men. Although, on the other hand, it is even cheaper for the special services to just kill the ringleaders, then they will not have to "restore the constitutional order." In general, the army in this regard is a tool for correcting the mistakes of politicians.
        3. Prapor-527
          Prapor-527 3 October 2013 12: 54
          +7
          Well, why should a bootleg be cut from a flea? Octopus-SD was originally developed as an airborne, floating self-propelled gun for the Airborne Forces and the Marine Corps. Why look for him a place in the ground forces, where there is enough armored vehicles to solve various problems?
          1. max702
            max702 4 October 2013 00: 18
            0
            What is he airborne for? for what tasks? For whom to shoot with such a caliber and such ammunition? I repeat, go to the courageous forum in the Airborne Engineer section there, we examined everything in detail and came to the conclusion what for it is needed ... By the way, for Nona the high-explosive effect of the shot is much higher than that of a 125mm tank shot and comes close to 152mm. .This weapon sharpened in a hypothetical global war with the participation of everyone is all, but why forget that in the event of such a conflict nuclear weapons will be used and all ... no winners all lost ..
        4. Avenger711
          Avenger711 3 October 2013 15: 38
          +1
          Amers instead of wretched MGS had a normal M8 Buford
      2. Avenger711
        Avenger711 3 October 2013 15: 39
        -1
        Let them change, and this country, which does not even have a main tank, is still oppressing something.
    2. Avenger711
      Avenger711 3 October 2013 15: 37
      +5
      The road in combat? Are you raving I’m silent about the rubble from reinforced concrete about which wheeled vehicles will tear tires and simply can’t turn around on the streets, unlike caterpillar and tank-like ones turning in place.
    3. Aristocrat
      Aristocrat 4 October 2013 22: 38
      0
      You won’t get much on the roads. Especially on broken funnels. But on the road, not a single wheeled vehicle will exceed the tracked one. That is why the BMP-1 was adopted and not its competitors on wheeled or wheeled-tracked tracks ...
      1. Akim
        Akim 5 October 2013 04: 28
        0
        Quote: Aristocrat
        adopted BMP-1 and not its competitors on wheeled or wheeled-tracked ...

        BMP-1 was adopted 45 years ago in service. After that, science stepped far forward. Caterpillar mover too. But the wheel drive is not much inferior to him. However, its advantage is the low cost of manufacture and ease of operation.
        1. Aristocrat
          Aristocrat 5 October 2013 08: 49
          0
          Nuka :)? What is so radically nanotechnological that a wheel propeller has appeared? Caterpillar - this is greater cross-country ability, bullet resistance (I could not find another term), maneuverability, etc. Yes, I agree that they began to make wheeled vehicles with a "turn on the tank", but initially tire inflation was foreseen (but their bullet resistance is still not high). But their permeability was inferior and will be inferior to the tracked engine. The total weight of the car is also limited ... Wheeled vehicles have the right to life, but as a cheaper addition and in no case a replacement for tracked vehicles ...
          1. ramsi
            ramsi 5 October 2013 09: 44
            0
            bulletproofness can be increased by side screens and an internal rubber bandage, on which the tire sits upon penetration (40km / hour guaranteed). The cross-country ability is ambiguous - there are coatings and terrain that are better overcome by long-travel suspension with wheel equipment. Well, the speed, low cost and ease of operation - will always be higher
            1. Aristocrat
              Aristocrat 5 October 2013 15: 35
              0
              All this is understandable. However, practice does not confirm your theory. Caterpillar mover in priority. Strange huh? With all the benefits you mentioned. Yes, even more expensive, and in operation, too ... All fools, right?
          2. Akim
            Akim 5 October 2013 14: 08
            0
            Quote: Aristocrat
            What is so radical nanotechnological appeared in a wheeled mover?

            Do not be offended, but this Medvedev nanotechnology annoys me. But this is a retreat. As for bullet resistance. Large-caliber bullets and single fragments are not afraid of tubeless multi-section tires. . New low-atmospheric cylinders can row in such a liquid where death also occurs on caterpillars. Here he climbs the hill worse. New rubber and filler materials. Independent wheel drives (even with the BTR-60) provide the tank with mobility even when the wheel is lost, and a torn track and such a mover will become Generally a lot of things are unknown to us and only experts know about this. Probably not in vain the Italian tank in Russia studied. They adopted something for themselves.
            1. Aristocrat
              Aristocrat 5 October 2013 15: 26
              +1
              As for nano, I agree. Therefore, I used this word scornfully.
              About low-atmospheric tires did not mention, but since you mentioned ... Are they worth it? Yes, the swamps of them are good. Is it worth talking about their bullet resistance? As the wheels of even lightly armored vehicles are generally unsuitable, but under fire, on rocky soils ... In short, it cannot be considered at all ...

              As for the BTR, with all its capabilities without 2-3 wheels, everyone knows. But as I see, not everyone knows about their cross ... Which is undoubtedly higher than jeeps but significantly inferior to the caterpillar mover. We dragged armored personnel carriers in the mud with Behami or tanks ... So I'm not talking about theory, I'm talking about practice that confirms the theory.
              I am now in the Yamal in the taiga. It is here that the roads are more or less. Even SUVs are passing by. There are deposits here that only Gazushka, a civilian analogue of MT-LB, passes by. Which again confirms the obvious advantages of the tracks ...
              1. Akim
                Akim 5 October 2013 15: 52
                0
                Quote: Aristocrat
                About low-atmospheric tires did not mention

                You take as examples, what we know, but that does not mean that Moskvich is better than Volvo .. Taking the low-atmospheric tire as an example, you forget that for a long time (30 years) there have been multi-atmospheres. What we do not have does not mean that this is not in the world. Wheel drive is not a panacea, and two movers have their right to life. But where the track can be replaced with a wheel, it is necessary to change. Therefore, the caterpillar is not the main feature of the tank. Of course, 40 tons and higher in MBT about the wheel is out of the question, but for light tanks this is it.
                1. Aristocrat
                  Aristocrat 6 October 2013 10: 13
                  +1
                  Where there is an opportunity ... That's just the fact that the calculation goes to the worst case, the thuja is off-road. The caterpillar goes along a good road and through mud - no. Why produce an initially defective technique? Like a cheap supplement, yes! No alternative!
              2. ramsi
                ramsi 5 October 2013 16: 49
                0
                purely theoretically, the permeability of our armored personnel carriers could be better; when landing on the belly and the general buoyancy of the hull with wheels, only sufficiently effective "oars" are needed. I think wheel hub attachments with good paddling surfaces might help.
                On hard and rocky soils, an 8-wheel chassis MUST behave better than a crawler
                1. Aristocrat
                  Aristocrat 6 October 2013 10: 20
                  +1
                  But the caterpillars do not need any oars ... I imagined how the oars stick out from the loopholes of the armored personnel carrier and the amphibious assault rowing :) A sort of triera or galley of modern times :)
                  On hard ground ... Solid ground is great. Dirt is bad ... But there are no options for mud. Tracked only. In addition, the main armored personnel carrier of the Russian army is the BTR-70. With its turning radius of about 14 meters ... In contrast to the "tank" turn in one place at the caterpillar, which is a plus, especially in urban areas where seemingly "solid" ground and a wheel are preferable ...
                  1. Akim
                    Akim 6 October 2013 11: 19
                    0
                    Quote: Aristocrat
                    . In addition, the main armored personnel carrier of the Russian army BTR-70.

                    Well, if you argue that there is no doubt. But Poland was able to spend 10 years on the transition of Wolverine, the Czech Republic - seven years on Pandury. They are not going to give up tracked platforms - but where possible they minimize costs. Maybe the caterpillar will be a favorite outside the Urals, but the European part of Russia, where there are solid soils and good roads, may well increase the percentage in the category gtreadmill wheel.
                    1. Aristocrat
                      Aristocrat 6 October 2013 13: 27
                      +1
                      To understand what kind of soil in the European part of Russia it is enough to recall military personnel as soldiers "on hand" dragging guns and lorries along muddy roads. As tanks are being dragged along them by command vehicles in tow. How horses can't pull carts out of their porridge ... Remember? So, despite the difference in soils in the European part of the country from the Asian, the north from the south, one thing remains unchanged - ROADLESS. What are you all about "good roads". Even on a bad road, the sedan will pass. But they are not fighting on the roads ... "It is smoothly stated in the paper, but they forgot about the ravines and walk on them ..."
                      Actually, our argument with you is about nothing ... Both of us understand that:
                      1 Caterpillars - large cross.
                      2. Wheels - cheaper (including maintenance).
                      3. Technique is needed both that and that.
                      1. Akim
                        Akim 6 October 2013 15: 00
                        0
                        Quote: Aristocrat
                        Suffice it to recall the military cadres as soldiers "on hand" drag guns and lorries along soggy roads

                        I say, you take the old as a basis. Yes, in those days there were no roads in the USSR, but only directions and, naturally, loads of traffic that increased hundreds of times make the soil into rubbish. It’s like the principle of a waterfall. But now movement is more developed infrastructure and much smaller armies. Exit to the ground and moving around the field is not so frequent, and soils are quite hard to withstand them. For example: In parallel to the Boryspil-Kiev highway there was (or was) a tank road. KAMAZ 4310 walked along it after a week of rain at the speed of the column. The training division with the D-20 was transferred without problems. If the T-64 were ahead, there would be no road.
                      2. Aristocrat
                        Aristocrat 6 October 2013 17: 42
                        0
                        I say, you take the old as a basis. Yes, in those days there were no roads in the USSR, but only directions and, naturally, loads of traffic that increased hundreds of times make the soil into rubbish.

                        I don’t think that since then the composition of the soils has changed noticeably anyway ... I don’t understand you ... I can’t imagine how you can fight without leaving the asphalt? It turns out a kind of armored train. There are a lot of guns. There is a lot of armor. But it’s a little confusing ... Rides only on rails, blow them up and there is no armored train. The enemy will never lose (where will he go from the canvas?).
                      3. Akim
                        Akim 6 October 2013 17: 52
                        0
                        Quote: Aristocrat
                        It turns out a kind of armored train.

                        Tell me, have you ever been in a marching column? So that I don’t get sprayed on an explanation of the amount of transport in the company’s convoy, the pressure exerted on the ground, the traffic flow of the brigade, and several types and varieties of routes. Ezhe if you will measure the standards of the Second World War, the conversation really gets stuck, like a lorry.
                      4. Aristocrat
                        Aristocrat 8 October 2013 12: 38
                        0
                        And more than once. Only in the company and less. In the brigade column was not seen :) Intelligence crowd does not go :) Sorry does not go :)
                        Only what does the Second World War? All the time you mention. What changed?
                        Fields and forests are not asphalted. With the development of means of attack, things only became more complicated. You can't go through a parade on the M5. It’s not about parades, not about “pokatushki” in peacetime from the places of deployment for shooting and not for shooting.
            2. ramsi
              ramsi 6 October 2013 12: 34
              0
              In my opinion, you do not understand. A caterpillar in dense mud sits on his belly and that's it.
              Nozzles on the wheel hubs, like the paddle wheels of steamers, smaller in diameter and not interfering with driving on normal surfaces, begin to row the slurry better than the tread of the wheels and tracks of the tracks
              1. Aristocrat
                Aristocrat 6 October 2013 13: 32
                0
                Sits on the belly of a technician with both types of propulsion. Only wheeled already with "average" off-road and tracked with "full". The steeper the jeep, the further the tractor is. Tested by me using a 4x4 service. Fittings on wheels to increase cross-country ability can improve the situation with wheeled vehicles and bring them a little closer to the tracked vehicles and only ... But not reach this level. About the disadvantages of equipping armored personnel carriers with all kinds of propellers, I generally keep quiet ...
                1. ramsi
                  ramsi 6 October 2013 13: 46
                  0
                  you somehow idealize the caterpillar mover - but did you see how it behaves on the concrete? ..- like a cow on ice. As for the downsides of the additional equipment, the caterpillars carry a log of self-extraction (its use is even funnier)
                2. Aristocrat
                  Aristocrat 6 October 2013 17: 50
                  0
                  I’m not idealizing. It’s just that at this moment it’s better (for off-road naturally) to come up with nothing (for all its shortcomings).
                  How many percent of the territory of Russia is covered with concrete? More or less than 0,00000001%?
                  A log can be transported or chopped in fact does not matter. It is important that it can be required extremely rarely. But the Beters we often dragged in tow for tanks and behi. It is possible to theorize on this subject as long as you like, but the realities do not change from this ...
  • Basileus
    Basileus 3 October 2013 10: 14
    +4
    I thought the article would be richer in examples. For example, the Americans were developing an interesting machine XM1202. In addition, it speaks of Chinese developments - it would be interesting to read about them.
    1. FAO_48E
      FAO_48E 4 October 2013 03: 28
      +1
      Developed the XM1202. This was part of the Future Combat Systems program. In FY2010, the entire FCS program was multiplied by zero.
      1. Basileus
        Basileus 4 October 2013 07: 22
        +1
        Anders and Octopus also have vague prospects, but they are here. And at FCS, they developed a lot of interesting solutions that can be applied in the future on other machines.
        1. Akim
          Akim 4 October 2013 08: 02
          0
          Quote: Basileus
          Anders and Octopus also have vague prospects

          Anders has prospects, though good. It will go as a multi-purpose platform, moreover, to India (at least that was announced at the beginning of the summer).
  • rennim
    rennim 3 October 2013 11: 34
    +5
    If you look closely at the photographs of the author, then Polish and Swedish vehicles have additional protection against cumulative ammunition. This is not visible on the Sprut. I hope the manufacturers will bring the protection at least to the level of protection against RPGs. Otherwise, such a machine will not survive on the battlefield for a long time. Even the BMP-2 in Afghanistan was used with special anti-cumulative screens.
    1. Basileus
      Basileus 3 October 2013 11: 56
      +4
      There is a problem. The octopus was created for the specific requirements of the Airborne Forces - landing and water floatability. Therefore, in terms of protection, Octopus is much inferior to other analogues. Perhaps the installation of KAZ could solve the problem, but this will add a few hundred kilograms to the already heaviest landing machine in the world. If you require security at the level of analogues presented in this article, you need to develop a new machine.
      1. Firstvanguard
        Firstvanguard 3 October 2013 12: 01
        +1
        I completely agree, but I need to add, protection against RPG-7 among analogues is also dumb wink
        1. Basileus
          Basileus 3 October 2013 12: 20
          +1
          KAZ can be put on analogs. On Octopus, I think, too, but in this case you need to look at how it will be with airdrop.

          In general, under enhanced protection, you need to develop a car that initially should neither jump nor swim, so as not to block the garden with IMHO body kit.
          1. Setrac
            Setrac 3 October 2013 16: 32
            +2
            Quote: Basileus
            In general, under enhanced protection, you need to develop a car that initially should neither jump nor swim, so as not to block the garden with IMHO body kit.

            And this car is MBT.
            1. Basileus
              Basileus 3 October 2013 18: 13
              0
              Not necessarily) It depends on what level of security you need to provide. Anders, in your opinion, MBT?
              1. Setrac
                Setrac 3 October 2013 20: 55
                +2
                Quote: Basileus
                Not necessarily) It depends on what level of security you need to provide. Anders, in your opinion, MBT?

                On the BASIC, he does not pull, because in view of the weak defense, combat stability is low, and will not provide combat stability to the unit to which the Anders will attach.
                1. Basileus
                  Basileus 4 October 2013 07: 23
                  -1
                  Here I am about the same. But at the same time, Anders fits under:
                  In general, under enhanced protection, you need to develop a car that initially should neither jump nor swim, so as not to block the garden with IMHO body kit.
  • samoletil18
    samoletil18 3 October 2013 11: 46
    +1
    It turns out that light tanks are being produced. For the educational program to the author "+". I consider only a self-propelled gun a tank, even a light one, as sabotage. And suddenly, war! And the SU-76, as a tank without a turret in the attack, will the Octopus be thrown? No, a self-propelled gun is a self-propelled gun. Only about the application, at least theoretically, it was possible to look for something. Only there is no need to talk about the PT-76 - it is floating. And the examples given, to put it mildly, did not convince them of the need to fence such a garden. Yes, it was worth looking for the volume of demand for this type of equipment.
  • Pimply
    Pimply 3 October 2013 12: 51
    +5
    Octopus is not a tank.
  • rudolff
    rudolff 3 October 2013 12: 52
    +5
    The reasoning of the hungry about the gastronomic differences between a white loaf and a loaf of black bread. The development is already almost 20 years old, and it is still being discussed whether our army needs it. Even as part of the parade crew, I managed to drive through Red Square, but the troops were not there, and they are not. An attempt at its reincarnation on the basis of 4M was started probably in the hope that Shamanov would still achieve his goal and change his airborne forces to a new BMD. The car, although specific, is very interesting in its niche. The Marines have long asked her to replace the PT-76, but the Ministry of Defense decided that they and the armored personnel carriers "are above their heads for all occasions." Whether the Octopus can be classified as light tanks, this is just a game of terms. In some countries, for example, armored self-propelled guns of a large callibr (classmates of Msta) are usually called heavy tanks. Speaking of lungs, one cannot help but recall Vienna, based on the BMP-3. Which, however, is also not among the troops.
    1. bask
      bask 3 October 2013 17: 34
      +4
      Quote: rudolff
      Reasoning hungry about the gastronomic differences of a white loaf from a loaf of black bread. The development is almost 20 years old, and

      This is exactly rudolff for 20 years and all in single copies.
      Need a modern modular platform, on a wheeled and tracked chassis.
      With unification on, knots and units, up to 75%.
      Modular weapons. From BTR / BMP, self-propelled guns, self-propelled guns, SU, etc.
      Mass up to 30 tons, seaworthy.
      As an example ACCOD (Spain Austria).
      The development of infantry fighting vehicles was started in 1988 by the Austrian company Steyr-Daimler-Puch AG together with the Spanish company Santa Barbara Sistemas, later the program was called ASCOD.
      The light tank ASCOD 105 is based on the ASCOD infantry tracked fighting vehicle.

      An extended chassis, the ASCOD is used as the base for the 155 mm Donar artillery systems.
      1. Avenger711
        Avenger711 3 October 2013 19: 25
        0
        There are platforms, these are BTR-80, BMP-3 and T-90.
        1. bask
          bask 3 October 2013 20: 16
          0
          Quote: Avenger711
          There are platforms, these are BTR-80, BMP-3 and T-90.

          Now there is only one such platform, GM GM 123 self-propelled guns, Acacia, Geacind, Tulip, etc.
          Here, this is the average modular medium armored platform.
          True, the year of issue is 1949. You need something newer.
          The curb weight is 25-30 tons. Payload 12 tons.
          1. Basileus
            Basileus 4 October 2013 07: 24
            +1
            A good platform. They developed the Soviet waffentrager, but got a universal artillery platform))
            1. bask
              bask 4 October 2013 21: 02
              0
              Quote: Basileus
              and got a universal artillery platform))

              Could, on its basis, create an excellent armored personnel carrier / infantry fighting vehicle. A model of Polish-made infantry fighting vehicle (BWP-2000) was equipped.
              The Poles created the BMP in the 90s, on the MT-S crawler chassis.
              BMP BWP-200.
              1. Basileus
                Basileus 6 October 2013 16: 41
                +1
                In the 50s, we developed the BTR-112 on the basis of the very same SU-100P, but they were not accepted into service.
      2. ayyildiz
        ayyildiz 3 October 2013 20: 39
        +2
        Light tank M8
        1. cdrt
          cdrt 3 October 2013 23: 05
          +1
          Light tank M8

          In my opinion, along with him, at one contest, Stingray was such a light tank.
          In my opinion, even somewhere in the arsenal was - like Thailand
          1. bask
            bask 4 October 2013 21: 08
            0
            TH-495 with a 105 mm gun.
            The photo is true in the BMP version.
        2. FAO_48E
          FAO_48E 4 October 2013 03: 38
          +2
          No, this is not a tank, this is the Armored Gun System, about the same as the Octopus (plus or minus). The idea was to equip the units of the 82nd airborne division ... They just cut it down. In 1996, the Army began to struggle with Secretary of Defense William Perry, as a result of which, all requests for financing the M8 program evaporated during the typesetting of the budget for the 1997 financial year.
    2. Avenger711
      Avenger711 3 October 2013 19: 25
      +1
      24 pieces built. "Vienna" purest self-propelled gun.
  • the47th
    the47th 3 October 2013 13: 04
    +3
    You can recall the Steyr SK 105. Not a completely new, but 100% light tank.
  • Lone gunman
    Lone gunman 3 October 2013 14: 09
    +1
    someone here said that the Sprut self-propelled gun is a tank ?!
    1. Basileus
      Basileus 3 October 2013 15: 14
      +1
      Do you have any counterarguments?
      1. Lone gunman
        Lone gunman 3 October 2013 17: 13
        +1
        Well, how can this device be called a tank? Except that a "disposable tank" - until the first hit, but there are no such things ... With tanks, Octopus will only send to fight, and blow up some fortification, then here you go, so this is a self-propelled gun for specific tasks ...
        1. Prapor-527
          Prapor-527 3 October 2013 17: 34
          +4
          True - to support landing operations.
        2. Basileus
          Basileus 3 October 2013 18: 17
          +2
          Can't you? T-60 (T-70), for example, were just such "disposable tanks", but they fought almost the entire war.
        3. Avenger711
          Avenger711 3 October 2013 19: 27
          0
          "Stingray" also before the first hit, like any light tank, on the Sprut-SD, the question is in the ability to shoot on the move, without this it will not pull the tank in any way.
    2. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 3 October 2013 15: 30
      +3
      Quote: Lone gunman
      self-propelled gun Octopus is a tank ?!

      Octopus is strange in that it is a SELF-PROPELLER, but with TANK weapons designed for DIRECT contact with the enemy.

      It has its own niche of application, where tank weapons are needed, but there is no way to transfer heavy equipment.
      1. Avenger711
        Avenger711 3 October 2013 19: 28
        +1
        In terms of penetration, a good 105 mm cannon is quite adequate, in general, almost light tanks are now a little inferior to the main ones.
  • kirgudu
    kirgudu 3 October 2013 14: 17
    +2
    I thought that VGTZ had already given oak for a long time. because most of the plant is occupied by all kinds of shopping and entertainment complexes.
  • Aleks tv
    Aleks tv 3 October 2013 14: 58
    +3
    Light tanks are also needed.
    Different tasks require a different technique.
    Conditions are always different, as are different theater scenes.

    Light equipment is unique in its way in that it can be quickly flown over long distances by plane; it itself crosses over water obstacles.
    It is more mobile when moving (for some reason, the wheel section of light tanks is not disclosed at all in the article).

    This is a weapon that is self-propelled and even covered by bulletproof armor.
    Better with such a technique than generally without any in some situations.
    So it must be perceived.

    Most importantly, this technique should not be sent to perform tasks completely unusual for it.
    And THIS in our Army, unfortunately, is very fond of doing ...
    1. bask
      bask 3 October 2013 16: 41
      +2
      Quote: Aleks tv
      Most importantly, this technique should not be sent to perform tasks completely unusual for it.

      Hi Lesh.
      That's for sure. It’s one thing to drive the Moors across Africa, another to go to a fortified city or a village in the forehead.
      Although the South African men have their own Rooikat, to fight not only with our T55, but to support the infantry in
      raids deep into Angolan territory.
      1. Avenger711
        Avenger711 3 October 2013 19: 29
        +2
        As a result, it turned out that this armored troop carrier is not afraid of the T-55.
        1. bask
          bask 3 October 2013 20: 41
          +1
          Quote: Avenger711
          It’s clear that this armored troop carrier is not afraid of the T-55

          When
          T-62 arrived in Angola, then, the BTRchik became not so effective.
        2. Basileus
          Basileus 4 October 2013 07: 29
          0
          Well, if you put the appropriate SLA on the T-55, then it will be worried)
  • Aristocrat
    Aristocrat 3 October 2013 15: 38
    +1
    Light tanks are definitely needed. Of course, their scope is very specific. As stated in the article, they are intended for use where heavy armored vehicles fail. In military circles (as in the military), there has long been debate about what kind of infantry fighting vehicles are needed. Heavy or light floating. Many military men advocate light armored vehicles. Like, on the Russian theater of warhead streaked with riverbeds, floating equipment can not be dispensed with. Both of them are right. For Russia is big. Its territory extends from the subtropics to the far north. The climate in the greater territory is sharply continental with characteristic large differences in average annual temperatures, snow and ice cover, moss, etc.
    There are both plain territory and mountain ranges, taiga, swamps, tutndra and steppes. Just do not list ... Heavy armored vehicles definitely needed. But you also need a light floating ship, capable of immediately crossing water barriers and holding the bridgehead until the main forces (including heavily armored) approach (through induced crossings, etc.).
    Again, light (and cheaper tanks) are a very good alternative for "poor" countries.
  • rudolff
    rudolff 3 October 2013 15: 42
    +3
    In principle, any self-propelled gun with two-plane barrel stabilization, automatic target tracking, BM rotation angle of 360 'and if there is a reservation, will pretend to be called a tank.
    1. Akim
      Akim 3 October 2013 16: 03
      0
      The tank fire only on a flat trajectory.
      1. bask
        bask 3 October 2013 16: 54
        +3
        Quote: Akim
        The tank fire only on a flat trajectory.

        Not only.
        In 1966, a Sheridan light tank came into service. A hull of aluminum alloys, a tower of steel armor .. Armament: 152mm caliber gun and launcher with anti-tank SD, Schilleillah.
        1. Akim
          Akim 3 October 2013 17: 29
          +2
          Quote: bask
          Armament: 152mm caliber gun and launcher with anti-tank SD,

          Sheridan also had fragmentation and cumulative shells. Stacked in two shelves. But due to the low initial speed and high weight, they were less accurate.
        2. Avenger711
          Avenger711 3 October 2013 19: 30
          0
          The idea turned out to be a feil, like the little-known M60A2 with such fluff.
          1. bask
            bask 3 October 2013 20: 45
            +1
            Quote: Avenger711
            th M60A2 with such fluff.

            Light tank M551 "Sheridan" with 152 mm cannon (down).
            M60A2 - the main American tank.
            M60A2 released in small quantities, armed with a 152-mm cannon, from which it was possible to fire both shells and MGM-51 ,, Shillela ,, missiles.
            But this is no longer a feil idea, it is an assault tank.
            Which is now relevant (the war in Syria) 152 mm OFS, for the battle in the city an ideal caliber.
  • Setrac
    Setrac 3 October 2013 16: 17
    +2
    Anders and SV-90 are clones. Differences at least within the modification.
  • Prapor-527
    Prapor-527 3 October 2013 17: 29
    +2
    Quote: samoletil18
    Only about the PT-76 there is no need to talk - it’s floating

    Does your octopus not swim? And I repeat - Octopus is not a tank but an SPG.
    1. Basileus
      Basileus 3 October 2013 18: 21
      +1
      So why exactly self-propelled guns? How does Octopus not fit the definition of a tank? Not MBT, but a tank in general?
      1. Setrac
        Setrac 3 October 2013 21: 22
        +2
        Quote: Basileus
        So why exactly self-propelled guns? How does Octopus not fit the definition of a tank? Not MBT, but a tank in general?

        This is a philosophical debate about why the first tanks - obscure boxes - are tanks, and Octopus, or for example MSTA - is self-propelled artillery. Apparently the matter is in the place of one or another papelatstsa in battle formations, the whole thing is in the purpose of this or that machine. If the tank is a well-protected machine that fights in the first line, if it fires a canopy - self-propelled guns, for example MSTA, if it hits tanks from the bushes - PT-self-propelled guns Sprut.
  • Aristocrat
    Aristocrat 3 October 2013 17: 46
    +1
    Quote: Akim
    The tank fire only on a flat trajectory.

    Self-propelled gun self-propelled discord ... History has given rise to many types of "self-propelled guns" including hunters for tanks with small vertical aiming angles.
    I think it’s fundamentally wrong to evaluate the class of the car at the pickup angles ...
  • Marconi41
    Marconi41 3 October 2013 18: 04
    -1
    Octopus - a tank that has no analogues ....! Oh well. Self-propelled, floating barge. If this is a weapon for the police forces, then why such weapons (will be expensive). If for the ground forces, then where to find her application. I would like to know who originally ordered it? And for what purpose?
    1. Avenger711
      Avenger711 3 October 2013 19: 32
      +5
      Exclusively for the Airborne. The land has BMP-3, which without landing turns into just a light tank and is used by the Arabs.
      1. Marconi41
        Marconi41 4 October 2013 06: 37
        -1
        Then why reinvent the wheel. After all, the BMP is the progenitor.
  • Bagatur
    Bagatur 3 October 2013 18: 46
    +2
    Octopus is imprisoned under the airborne forces, and for it is much easier than other analogues ... For it it also recedes in security.
  • Aristocrat
    Aristocrat 3 October 2013 19: 40
    +2
    Quote: Marconi41
    If this is a weapon for the police forces, then why such weapons (will be expensive). If for the ground forces, then where to find her application.

    Who and where indicated that the octopus is a "police" car? The machine was created for the Airborne Forces and by order of the Airborne Forces. All airborne operations, which began successfully without the support of heavy equipment, quickly drowned (excursion into history). Therefore, at one time, landing self-propelled guns were created by order of Margolin (I hope you understood who we are talking about?) With a very modest caliber (57 and ... like 85mm). Of course, with the advent of RPG, SPG and ATGM rocket systems, the paratroopers no longer look so defenseless against MBT, but it's no secret that the most reliable and reliable anti-tank weapon is a BOPS fired from a tank gun. The paratroopers asked and got what they wanted. Yes, I agree that the armor is not tank armor. But if there was the technical ability to drop the T-72 "Sprut" would never have appeared ...
    1. Marconi41
      Marconi41 4 October 2013 06: 04
      0
      It seemed to me that the Airborne Forces had already covered their needs in this matter with "Nona". It is lighter, with the same armor protection, it is not intended to take something by storm, but it provides fire support. But for some reason I don't see the tasks for the Octopus. Will they use it to storm the fortifications? Losses will overlap everything positive. Ambush fire support? Then "Nonu" in the trash?
      1. Akim
        Akim 4 October 2013 08: 10
        +1
        Quote: Marconi41
        It seemed to me that the Airborne Forces had already covered their needs in this matter with "Nona".

        Nona is Nona. It closes artillery (instead of the D-30 and mortars). In general, the Soviet version of the MOS. The Octopus-SD should replace the Octopus-B and the wearable SPG-9D, as well as increase the mobility of anti-tank artillery. Because they cannot be replaced completely by ATGMs and RPGs.
    2. Aristocrat
      Aristocrat 5 October 2013 09: 10
      0
      Sorry for the Freudian slip! I just noticed that I wrote "Margolin" where "Margelov" wanted. The first designer of firearms :) I wanted to mention the father of the Airborne Forces.
  • Aristocrat
    Aristocrat 3 October 2013 21: 37
    +1
    Quote: bask
    But this is no longer a feil idea, it is an assault tank.
    Which is now relevant (the war in Syria) 152 mm OFS, for the battle in the city an ideal caliber.

    In urban conditions, only heavily armored vehicles with remote sensing and, ideally, with KAZ have a chance of survival and successful use. As for the caliber, I agree. Our six-inch self-propelled guns (and their strong armor) proved to be excellent during the Second World War, including during the storming of Berlin. Yes, and during the suppression of the "uprising" in Prague after the war.
  • ramsi
    ramsi 3 October 2013 21: 40
    0
    in my opinion, a tank gun with a motor and a jeep is better than a light tank
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Aristocrat
    Aristocrat 4 October 2013 07: 56
    0
    Quote: ramsi
    in my opinion, a tank gun with a motor and a jeep is better than a light tank

    What is a "motorized tool"? And what is better for a light, weakly armored wheeled vehicle (with a 4x4 formula) of a tracked amphibious vehicle armed with a tank gun (the best anti-tank weapon at the moment and for many decades to come)?
    1. ramsi
      ramsi 4 October 2013 08: 45
      0
      with a motor - self-propelled at firing positions, a jeep - transport-loading, and better, because it’s twice as cheap and easier to mask
      1. Aristocrat
        Aristocrat 4 October 2013 11: 09
        0
        A gun equipped with a Zaporozhets engine is better (more mobile) than just a gun. But it is not clear why it seems to you that a tracked, amphibious vehicle with circular (albeit light) armor is "worse" than a non-floating, non-armored vehicle, and even with several times less cross-country ability? In addition, the Cannon + tug is already two objects requiring separate landing and further search for each other on the battlefield where the crew will land separately from the jeep with ammunition, and the gun somewhere else ...
        Cheaper. I agree. But is it better? Definitely not!
        1. ramsi
          ramsi 4 October 2013 12: 06
          -1
          the cannon + jeep is a universal combination, and can be used in conventional troops, and such a light tank, besides the specific tasks of the landing (and that, probably, not all) is difficult to imagine. In addition, the BMD-4 landing party has decent firepower, and throwing it face to face with enemy tanks means using it for other purposes
          1. Aristocrat
            Aristocrat 4 October 2013 18: 45
            0
            Toto and it’s that Octopus was created just for the landing! For the landing, practically EVERYTHING is created specifically because of the specifics of the troops (AKMS, RPKS-74, AKS-74, SVD-S, BTR-D, BMD, etc.!). Why use it in conventional troops ?! In conventional troops, the effect of the octopus is performed by T-72 (80,90) !!! More precisely, the function of the T-72 (80,90) in the Airborne Forces is performed by Octopus! :)
            A strange thing! The light armor and weak weapons of the BMD seem to be quite sufficient for tank duels, and the SPRUT armed with a TANK cannon and the same armor should act from ambush and will in every way evade the battle with the enemy for the destruction of which it was created? :)
            1. ramsi
              ramsi 5 October 2013 09: 50
              -1
              BMD is an inevitable evil, and let the ATGMs work from ambushes - the effect is the same, but the cost (and dimensions) is orders of magnitude lower
              1. Aristocrat
                Aristocrat 5 October 2013 15: 44
                0
                SPRUT is the same "inevitable evil". If in Russian it is a forced car. For the MBT cannot be dropped from the IL-76, and not from the IL, either ...
                How much can I say about birds ... Yes, there are ATGM landing forces, yes! I have already written seven times in this thread that ATGMs are an excellent weapon, but KAZ can intercept it, it (ATGMs), like any cumulative ammunition, can be neutralized by a screen and (or) DZ. While you need (Airborne) ammunition that is guaranteed to break through tank armor. Currently, the best ammunition is a caliber projectile. That is why the Airborne Forces ordered SPRUT, in addition to and not instead of ATGMs and LNG-9. How do you not understand?
                1. ramsi
                  ramsi 5 October 2013 17: 13
                  0
                  your BOPS is more effective only in the forehead. A pair of ATGMs from one direction and almost simultaneously hardly parry KAZ, tandem ammunition is unlikely to keep the DZ. Such a situation, of course, may be. But to make and maintain a special anti-tank machine for the landing, only to wait for the enemy tanks in an ambush? .. The Airborne Forces ordered ... - well, right, I would have ordered the maximum in their place too. However, it’s much wiser to plan airborne operations correctly
                  1. Aristocrat
                    Aristocrat 6 October 2013 10: 08
                    0
                    your BOPS is more effective only in the forehead.

                    Well, yes, of course, only in the forehead! The side and stern cannot be mastered, the reservation there is not an example thicker than the frontal projection :)

                    A pair of ATGMs from one direction and almost simultaneously hardly parry KAZ, tandem ammunition is unlikely to keep the DZ. Such a situation, of course, may be.

                    KAZ self-blinding with explosion products lasts tenths of a second. The probability of an almost simultaneous ATGM approach from a long distance is practically zero ... The tandem ammunition strikes the armor under the DZ, but will it work just as effectively when it hits the screen with the DZ? BOPS is both not critical ...
                    But to make and maintain a special anti-tank machine for the landing, only to wait for the enemy tanks in an ambush? .. The Airborne Forces ordered ... - well, right, I would have ordered the maximum in their place too.

                    Like it or not, the landing party is always and everything is designed "specially". Especially BMD, especially Nona, especially AKMS, SVD-S, AKS-74, etc. The landing force, as well as the scout, always needs to get the most out of it, because there is nowhere to ask for help and not where to stock up on ammunition.
                    It's easy to say "plan well". If you exaggerate, then in your opinion, if everything is very, very competently planned, then there is nothing but machine guns for the landing party?
                    This technique is "smart planning". Because any operation requires fire support, which is why Nona-Vienna-Octopus is being developed for the Airborne Forces.
                    1. ramsi
                      ramsi 6 October 2013 12: 53
                      0
                      beautifully, of course you distort, but oh well. Properly planning - this means taking care that the landing party does NOT HAVE to collide with tanks; that is, they either should not be there, or they should be neutralized by other means. The Airborne Forces are, after all, special, very limited tactical forces. In the operational plan, their role is rather auxiliary; There are specifics, of course, but not ad infinitum ...
                      1. Aristocrat
                        Aristocrat 6 October 2013 13: 21
                        0
                        That and it is that the tanks will be pulled up there to destroy the landing ... About the "other" means have already written repeatedly. They are and will be, but they require an addition in the form of a tank cannon, which is actually implemented in the form of SPRUT.
                      2. ramsi
                        ramsi 6 October 2013 13: 25
                        0
                        by "other means" I meant the aviation and artillery of the main group
                      3. Aristocrat
                        Aristocrat 6 October 2013 18: 21
                        0
                        That is, given the availability of aviation and somewhere around artillery, anti-tank weapons will be eliminated? Why are they needed if somewhere there is something? Did I understand you correctly?

                        Or are you not interested in any arguments and common sense? Because the Octopus is bad and the point !? Why? Yes, just bad! Because bad and that's it.
                        Is this your position?
                      4. ramsi
                        ramsi 6 October 2013 18: 37
                        0
                        Quote: Aristocrat
                        That is, given the availability of aviation and somewhere around artillery, anti-tank weapons will be eliminated? Why are they needed if somewhere there is something? Did I understand you correctly?

                        - to limit within reasonable limits for the needs of the Airborne Forces.
                        And I don’t think that the octopus is bad, I just think that it’s better to have one full-fledged tank where it can be fully used for its intended purpose than two of them in reserve
                      5. Aristocrat
                        Aristocrat 6 October 2013 22: 57
                        0
                        You finally came to what I told you about! Ie to the fact that SPRUT is a special machine for the airborne! Only! In conventional troops it is not needed! And it’s not intended for them! And they won’t be delivered there :) Well, now what is ferstein? :)
                      6. ramsi
                        ramsi 7 October 2013 06: 12
                        0
                        You screwed up again, but I'm already tired.
                        Tell me, how do you see the use of the Airborne Forces in military times?
                        Well, in a sluggish conflict, they are likely to be able to act as intended. (Although an unexpected meeting with the tanks there is unlikely) And in a big war? .. Do you think they will be left to sit in the rear until the need for a landing operation? Most likely, after all, they will be thrown to the front line, to plug some hole where they put it. It’s the same with technology - they won’t store it ... and when the time comes for the landing, it’s all the same again it will be an impromptu in all its components
                      7. Aristocrat
                        Aristocrat 8 October 2013 13: 11
                        0
                        My vision of the prospects for the use of airborne forces seems very vague. The possibility of using them for their intended purpose will appear only with complete air supremacy and with a completely suppressed air defense. Which is very unlikely even with a complete numerical and qualitative advantage over the enemy. Suffice it to recall the heroic Serbs and the defense against NATO and its satellites (Masulman thugs). The obsolete Cube air defense missile system shot down an F-117 (who does not know, made using Stealth technologies). Landing is possible only with total domination over a weak or defeated enemy (and even then with great risk). The use of the Airborne Forces as motorized riflemen is a standard phenomenon for the Caucasus. The "pluses" include the theoretical better training of paratroopers (in practice, I did not notice the difference between paratroopers and infantrymen), less sensitivity of "aluminum" armored vehicles to mines, greater slope angles than that of infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers. The disadvantages are the small resource of hollow "aluminum" rollers on stony soil, the absence of tank equipment in the DShB, etc.
                        Correctly say that they will quit performing uncharacteristic tasks. Moreover, history confirms this. But what remains? To issue equipment according to tasks? Absurdity ... If, however, initially armed with standard models of army equipment, then what's the point of calling these units of the airborne forces? If they are essentially and in fact will be motorized rifles?
  • Aristocrat
    Aristocrat 4 October 2013 08: 35
    +2
    Quote: Marconi41
    It seemed to me that the Airborne Forces had already covered their needs in this matter with "Nona". It is lighter, with the same armor protection, it is not intended to take something by storm, but it provides fire support. But for some reason I don't see the tasks for the Octopus. Will they use it to storm the fortifications? Losses will overlap everything positive. Ambush fire support? Then "Nonu" in the trash?


    Dear Marconi ... I just described to you the purpose and scope of the octopus ... I repeat myself. Details and in order.
    Each unit must have its own vehicles, anti-tank weapons, fire support and tanks. Let's remember what the landing party looked like at the dawn of its existence. He was just an infantry with small arms and grenades. Yes, the sudden appearance in the rear of the enemy allowed them to build on their success at the first stage of the operation. But ... But then the enemy pulled up artillery, tanks (that is, heavy weapons) and shot almost with impunity the landing force that had nothing to oppose ... Therefore, work began to provide the landing with anti-tank weapons, artillery and ... tanks !!! First, there were various types of grenade launchers (hand and easel). Then the mortars. To ensure mobility and fire support, airborne equipment was created (BMD, BTR-D, etc.). But the landing on their lightly armed vehicles was no different from the infantry on the BMP and armored personnel carriers. While the infantry interacted with tanks and artillery. It's time to create a "tank" and artillery. The Nona you mentioned is nothing more than a self-propelled breech-loading mortar. And for some reason the "tank" was called a self-propelled gun mount. Apparently due to the lack of tank armor. You should neither compare nor oppose SPRUT to NONE and vice versa. These are different cars. More precisely, different weapons and purposes. SPRUT is "Scrap", scrap against which there is no reception. This scrap (more precisely, BOPS from this weapon) will, if necessary, break through promising tanks equipped with KAZ, DZ systems, uranium armor, etc. Because this is the most effective weapon today against the main enemy ... Tank! The tank is the dictator of the battlefield. Rex. An alpha male if you please. The tank is always the most important and dangerous target, everything else is secondary. That is why we see the rapid development of anti-tank weapons.
    Octopus was born as a compromise. A compromise between powerful weapons and the ability to move this technique with an airborne method. If it were possible to land an MBT, Octopus would not have appeared at all, even the idea of ​​creating such a technique.
    1. Rex
      Rex 4 October 2013 10: 55
      +1
      [quote = Aristocrat] [quote = Marconi41]

      SPRUT is "Scrap", scrap against which there is no reception. This scrap (more precisely, BOPS from this weapon) will, if necessary, break through promising tanks equipped with KAZ, DZ systems, uranium armor, etc. Because this is the most effective weapon today against the main enemy ... [/ quote]

      Support.
      And another 125 mm cannon with 2-4 km is a good argument against almost any armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles.

      [quote = Aristocrat] [quote = Marconi41] If it were possible to land the MBT Octopus would not have appeared at all, even the idea of ​​creating such a technique. [/ quote]

      MBT were parachuted in the USSR. There was a special container. Rather, the matter is in the mass - 40-50 tons. cars "carry" for a long time and there is nothing special
  • Aristocrat
    Aristocrat 4 October 2013 10: 59
    0
    Quote: Rex
    MBT were parachuted in the USSR. There was a special container. Rather, the matter is in the mass - 40-50 tons. cars "carry" for a long time and there is nothing special
    Give a reference. As far as I know, MBTs were landed in a landing way, that is, they were simply transported in a military transport aircraft. According to the formula 1 flight of an airplane = 1 tank. As you understand, it’s costly and inefficient. Yes, and the enemy vryatli will provide airdromes in their rear and will wait until we drag the tank regiment there :)))
    1. Rex
      Rex 4 October 2013 12: 04
      0
      [quote = Aristocrat] [quote = Rex] Give a reference.) [/ quote]

      I won’t give a link - maybe they are, but there’s no time to search.
      I will write from memory.
      I had a book from the 80s of the publication (maybe now my parents are gathering dust), there is a photo with comments.
      The tank is depicted (I do not remember the model - T-62 / T-72) leaving the container.
      The container is a capsule. front part - hemisphere. As I understand it, bolted around the entire circumference.
      What I don’t remember exactly was whether it was parachuting or dropping on a shaver. Like parachutes.

      [quote = Aristocrat] [quote = Rex] As far as I know, MBTs were landed in a landing way, that is, they were simply transported in a military transport aircraft. According to the formula 1 flight of an airplane = 1 tank. As you yourself understand, it’s costly and inefficient. Yes and the enemy vryatli will provide airdromes in their rear and will wait until we drag the tank regiment there :)))) [/ quote]

      I absolutely agree.
      Lifting capacity of IL-76 is barely per 1 tank weighing (taking into account the parachute system) a maximum of 45 tons.
      An-124 will "pull" 2 pieces, but there are few of them in the army and it is good if they are "on the move".
      In general, it is too expensive, long and dangerous (one hit of a missile defense and minus at least $ 100-150 million) ...
  • Aristocrat
    Aristocrat 4 October 2013 12: 31
    0
    Quote: Rex
    What I don’t remember exactly was whether it was parachuting or dropping on a shaver. Like parachutes.

    In any case, developments in this direction have not yielded results. Therefore, the "landing" tank will take its rightful place next to Nona, Vienna and BMD.
  • nightingale
    nightingale 4 October 2013 12: 31
    -2
    Octopus nedo tank Nedo sau: gun lightweight effektivnostb 1-1.5km when at the adversary 2-3km, in the front positions cannot be used, from closed positions can not fire. too narrowly specialized appointment, as the general said only in depth of defense from ambushes. In view of the difficulty in supplying the landing party, it is better to prefer something else more universal, for example, nono.
    1. Rex
      Rex 4 October 2013 13: 14
      0
      Quote: nightingale
      Octopus nedo tank Nedo sau: gun lightweight effektivnostb 1-1.5km when at the adversary 2-3km, in the front positions cannot be used, from closed positions can’t fire.


      Judging by the declared performance characteristics, then from 1,5-2 km one Octopus can stop the enemy company on the BMP.
    2. Aristocrat
      Aristocrat 4 October 2013 17: 08
      0
      Well, all of you (and you, too, are no exception) you read through once understand in two ...
      Reread my posts! Octopus is an anti-tank weapon of the Troopers! The best of what exists. From NONA (read the mortar) Abrams cannot be overwhelmed ...
  • nightingale
    nightingale 4 October 2013 15: 45
    -1
    Not one octopus, but with a landing platoon on a BMD, will bypass the flanks differently, and if the enemy company has at least one tank, then in a direct collision it will not have a chance. in the octopus, the only niche is the action due to ambushes with prepared reserve positions in advance.
    1. Akim
      Akim 4 October 2013 15: 54
      +1
      Quote: nightingale
      in the octopus, the only niche is the action due to ambushes with prepared reserve positions in advance.

      Can you remind that the Airborne Forces have heavy armor. These are offensive troops, like marines, and they need good firepower at the expense of security. The BMD-4 gun is not capable of effectively fighting either bunkers or enemy tanks. Even if he has ATGMs.
  • nightingale
    nightingale 4 October 2013 16: 32
    0
    It is true that before defending something it is necessary to capture it and you will not wear heavy armor, therefore it is more preferable to use a more universal weapon, for example, nona more modern version of mine Vienna. it can shoot from a closed position and direct fire, its high-explosive action is more than that of a tank shell. There are controlled missiles and anti-tank mines with a shock core
    1. Aristocrat
      Aristocrat 4 October 2013 17: 14
      +1
      The shell's high explosive capacity does not ensure penetration of MBT armor ...
      ATGMs are a good anti-tank weapon, but ... But like any cumulative ammunition it is neutralized by DZ, it is intercepted by screens and intercepted by the KAZ system. A caliber projectile from a tank gun is a much more reliable means in the fight against the basis of the ground forces - a tank. That is why SPRUT was ordered by the Airborne Forces, which is why their order was completed. Do not compare weapons with different purposes ...
      1. nightingale
        nightingale 5 October 2013 12: 08
        -1
        An octopus doesn’t quite approach the offensive, especially against the tanks of the initial amphibious assault maneuver. if there is nothing to be changed with shasi and reservation, the equipment is necessary for the dasant, then with a gun it seems they decided to save a lot of old 125mm shells in warehouses. if the octopus is positioned as an anti-tank system, then you need to install a more powerful or rather even a longer-range gun, so that at the aiming limit of 3-4 km not just hit, but break through the armor of tanks with crowbars. so what is needed is not just a tank cannon, but a special anti-tank cannon, in order to neutralize the disadvantages of the forced octopus of the Cannon with a long arm. as for the armored personnel carrier and bmp, any gun, including a small-caliber anti-aircraft gun, can destroy them.
        1. Aristocrat
          Aristocrat 5 October 2013 15: 17
          0
          you need to set a more powerful, or rather even more long-range gun, so that at the limit of aiming 3-4 km not just hit, but break through the armor of tanks with crowbars. so what is needed is not just a tank gun but a special anti-tank gun

          At such ranges, cumulative and armor-piercing high-explosive (USA) ammunition is used for which the speed of encountering armor is not critical.
          Did you understand what you said? In general, tanks are initially armed with "anti-tank" guns, because the main goal of the tank is the same tank but under the command of another state ...
          In addition, children's dreams of a super-duper gun are utopia. Firstly, if it was then it would be in the tank of the enemy. Secondly, you understand why it is impossible to install a 305 mm howitzer on the BMP chassis? And why can't the infantryman shoot from the hip with a 57mm automatic gun? If so, why do you want to put on a light shade something that, by definition, cannot stand on light equipment?
          Personally, I admire the designers who created the light machine with a tank gun!
          1. nightingale
            nightingale 5 October 2013 20: 02
            -2
            With a cumulative projectile whose speed is 900 m / s at such a distance of 3-4 km, it is problematic to get into a moving tank.
            Tanks are armed with tank guns, the purpose for which not so many tanks are moaning, but infantry, engineering structures, anti-tank weapons, etc. . . and everywhere it should be effective.
            By increasing the effectiveness of the anti-tank properties of the guns, they do not stupidly increase the caliber, but on the contrary reduce the caliber, increasing the length of the barrel and pressure in it, etc. . .
            Of course, a lot of work has been done to place this gun on light equipment, but it would be better to create a new gun with better characteristics than wasting a 50 year old gun.
            This problem is certainly not the designers, but the customer.
            1. Aristocrat
              Aristocrat 5 October 2013 23: 38
              0
              The goal becomes what they shoot, but this does not mean that the purpose of the gun is changing.
              Reducing caliber to increase "anti-tank properties"? Since you said that, then of course it is! Only the creators of weapons c.r.t.i.n. did not know anything about this and have forgotten how to knock out heavy tanks with 37-45 mm guns :))))) Tell them about their mistake. And then they are seriously considering the transition from 120-125mm to 140-155mm! Don't let them do this! :) Offer them to equip tanks with needle guns! After all, in your opinion, the smaller the caliber, the higher the anti-tank properties. Did I understand you correctly?! :) Real benefit! You can load a couple of million sewing needles into a tank and shoot for two years without stopping, turning the enemy's tank into a pillow for needles or a porcupine :) Absurd? I agree with you :)

              Sighting range of cumulative 3000m.
              Certainly not the most effective fire. At such a distance, nada ATGM from the same gun, or a homing projectile (which is provided).

              A sub-caliber outfit released from this gun at a distance of 2000 m pierces 300 mm at an angle to the normal of 60 degrees.
              You consider these abilities "Tanks are armed with tank guns, the purpose for which is not so much tanks, but infantry, engineering structures, anti-tank weapons"
              Yes, as an engineer, I’m very upset that you write the word engineer extremely poorly :)
  • FAO_48E
    FAO_48E 5 October 2013 02: 25
    0
    Quote: Basileus
    And at FCS, they developed a lot of interesting solutions that can be applied in the future on other machines.
    Quite possible. In the United States, even if the program is closed, the state will legally automatically inherit all those. documentation and developments (i.e. everything that was done for state money). An example would be the program to create the main battle tank MBT-70, closed in November 1971. The program was closed, but all the documentation was transferred to the XM815 project, which was later renamed XM1 and culminated in the creation of the M1 Abrams tank.
    1. Basileus
      Basileus 6 October 2013 16: 47
      0
      This happens in any country. In addition, as part of the program to create a combat vehicle, many elements were created that can be used as modernization of existing models. This is a weapon, and AZ to it, and interaction systems, and tank KAZ, and much more.